In 1919 there was a riot involving Canadian soldiers from a local Camp. They released fellow soldiers in custody and raided the officers’ mess, and damaged and stole the contents of a tailor’s shop and other shops known as ‘Tin Town’ – a group of shops erected with the permission of the military authorities on a part of the Portsmouth Road which ran through the camp. The plaintiff was the owner of the tailor’s shop and sued the defendant police authority under the 1886 Act.
Held: Swift J said: ‘The defendants contend that although it is true that a house, shop or building has been destroyed it is not a house, shop or building in any police district, as the police had no jurisdiction over Witley Camp, the action of the military having taken Witley Camp completely out of the police district.’ and ‘But the Act of Parliament does not give a citizen a right to compensation for damage by riot on any principle of blaming the police over the matter. The fact that the damage has been done in spite of the care and protection of the police or because of the negligence of the police does not affect the right of the claimant to have compensation. It is a right which is given to the individual who is hurt by a riot to have his damages shared by the whole of the community, and the community for the purpose of this sharing is the police district within which the building injured or destroyed is situated.’
Swift J went on to say that the fact that the camp was a private place did not prevent it from being a place in which a riot could take place’But it is said that the police had no control over the soldiers and that they were helpless to do anything. I do not think that that contention is right. I think that the police had the right of control directly a felony was committed in their presence. Of course they had not the power of exercising control. I have stated what opinion I have formed of the three police officers who gave evidence before me. I have not the slightest doubt that they had sufficient courage to try to stop the disturbance; they would, however, have been foolish men had they attempted to do so, as it could not possibly have done any good and they might have been very seriously hurt if not actually killed in endeavouring to quell the disturbance, but the fact that it may not be physically possible for the police to quell a disturbance does not affect the question of their legal rights. I am far from being satisfied that if the police in the neighbourhood of a military camp see the soldiers breaking it up they have not a legal right to apprehend them for the breach of the peace or for the felony which they are committing.’ and
‘The right to compensation does not seem to me to be in the least degree dependent upon any action or inaction on the part of the police. It is quite clear that it would have been physically impossible for all the police in Surrey, who I think numbered 280 at this time, to have taken control of that camp without the assistance and support of the military authorities. It would have been a physical impossibility for them to have reduced some hundreds of rioters, many of whom I suppose were armed or had access to arms, to such a state that they could say that the riot was quelled. But no one here suggests any neglect or impropriety on the part of the police. Every one who has heard this case I should think has come to the conclusion that they acted with great discretion and great propriety in the matter. But the Act of Parliament does not give a citizen a right to compensation for damage by riot on any principle of blaming the police over the matter. The fact that the damage has been done in spite of the care and protection of the police or because of the negligence of the police does not affect the right of the claimant to have compensation. It is a right which is given to the individual who is hurt by a riot to have his damages shared by the whole of the community, and the community for the purpose of this sharing is the police district within which the building injured or destroyed is situated. The plaintiff is entitled to have the wrong which was done to her shared by all the contributors to the police fund in the police district of Surrey.’
Judges:
Swift J
Citations:
[1923] 2 KB 57
Statutes:
Cited by:
Cited – Bedfordshire Police Authority v Constable and others ComC 20-Jun-2008
The authority insured its primary liability for compensation under the 1886 Act through the claimants and the excess of liability through re-insurers. The parties sought clarification from the court of the respective liabilities of the insurance . .
Appeal From – Pitchers v Surrey County Council CA 2-Jan-1923
The claimant sought payment for damages to his property after imprisoned Canadian troops were released and came into the town causing damage.
Held: Lord Sterndale said: ‘it is said that this camp under the circumstances ceased to be within the . .
Cited – Yarl’s Wood Immigration Ltd and Others v Bedfordshire Police Authority CA 23-Oct-2009
The claimant sought to recover the costs of damage to their centre following a riot, saying that under the 1886 Act, they were liable. It appealed against a ruling that they were unable to claim as a public authority, saying that the 1886 Act was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Police, Damages
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.270268